alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance SWEAT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20612.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

*862James Lee Turner, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daucie Elana Shefman, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of Terrance Sweat. *United States v. Sweat,*No. 03-20612 (5th Cir. Jun. 21, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Sweat v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 993, 160 L.Ed.2d 1018 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of *Booker.*

Sweat contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibited by *Booker.*This court will not consider a *Booker-related*challenge raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari absent extraordinary circumstances. *United States v. Taylor,*409 F.3d 675, 676-77 (5th Cir.2005). Sweat identifies “no evidence in the record suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines system.” *Id.*(citing *United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez,*405 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, — L.Ed.2d. - (2005)). This court has rejected the argument that a *Booker*error is a structural error or that such error is presumptively prejudicial. *Mares,*402 F.3d at 520-22; *see also United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 561 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Because Sweat has not demonstrated plain error, “it is obvious that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” *See Taylor,*409 F.3d at 676-77.

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s *Booker*decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Sweat’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5209-H5210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       GRANT AFFECTED STEEL WORKERS ELIGIBILITY FOR COMPENSATION

  (Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, an alarming number of former employees at 
Bethlehem Steel in western New York are now suffering from cancer and 
other diseases due to radiation exposure as a result of having 
unknowingly worked with and around uranium during the Cold War.
  After a multiyear fight, and thanks to the determination of workers 
and their families, those who were employed at the site from 1949 to 
1952 are eligible for $150,000 in compensation for

[[Page H5210]]

their injuries. However, the cutoff at 1952 is arbitrary because no 
serious mitigation was undertaken until 1976.
  Madam Speaker, those workers should also be eligible for just 
compensation. I am working with our Senators to urge the Centers for 
Disease Control and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health to meet with these workers, hear their stories, and finally 
grant them eligibility for just compensation.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2021349EN.01000602.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla

(Case C-795/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers - Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required - Absolute bar to remaining in employment)

(2021/C 349/07)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Interveners: Justiitsminister, Tervise- ja tööminister, Õiguskantsler

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an absolute bar to a prison officer remaining in employment when his or her auditory acuity does not meet the minimum standards of sound perception prescribed by that legislation, without allowing it to be ascertained whether that officer is capable of fulfilling those duties, where appropriate after the adoption of reasonable accommodation measures within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.01.2020.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for effective date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://www.treasury.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action(s)

                    On December 7, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are                           ( print page 86215)                        blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.                 
      ( print page 86216)          ( print page 86217)          ( print page 86218)    

Dated: December 7, 2023.

Bradley T. Smith,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2023-27234 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:
October 30, 2007

| |  | By: | /s/MARK A. MAKIMark A. Maki Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
| |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Sugarcane Diseases Regulated Articles

7 CFR § 301.87-2

Last update: August 20, 1987

a) Sugarcane plants, whole or in part, including true seed and bagasse, but not including pieces of cane 

boiled for a minimum of 30 minutes during processing into sugarcane chews;

b) Used sugarcane processing equipment (sugarcane mill equipment, such as equipment used for 

extracting and refining sugarcane juice; and experimental devices, such as devices used for 

extracting sugarcane juice); 

c) Used sugarcane field equipment (equipment used for sugarcane field production purposes, e.g. 

planters, tractors, discs, cultivators, and vehicles); 

d) Sugarcane juice; and 

e) (e) Any other product, article, or means of conveyance, of any character whatsoever, not covered by 

paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, when it is determined by an inspector that it presents a 

risk of spread of a sugarcane disease and the person in possession of it has actual notice that the 

product, article, or means of conveyance is subject to the restrictions of this section.
Review, Electronic Filing, and Disposal of
United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled
Materials and Organisms and Vectors (VS Form 16-6A)

This document provides work instructions on the review, electronic filing, and disposal of
United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled
Materials and Organisms and Vectors, VS Form 16-6A (import permits) that are
submitted electronically by the VS National Import Export Services (NIES) to the Center
for Veterinary Biologics.

Import permits are emailed by NIES as a PDF attachment to the Inspection and
Compliance Lead Biologics Compliance Assistant (IC-Lead BCA).

IC-Lead BCA

IC-Lead BCA saves the import permit to establishment’s “Import Permit” folder located
1 es (The establishment is listed
on the import permit in block entitled “Name and Address of Permittee Including ZIP
Code and Telephone Number.”) File name of import permit is expiration date of permit
and permit number (example: 070803 (year month day) #100673). IC-Lead BCA emails
the import permit to the establishment’s Biologics Specialist for review.

Those miscellaneous import permits received for unlicensed companies are filed in the
Misc. Import Permits folder located in [File
name of miscellaneous import permits is expiration date of permit, permit number, and
name of unlicensed company (example: 141031 #104445 Any Company).

IC Biologics Specialist Review

The Biologics Specialist receives the import permit from the IC-Lead BCA for review.
The Biologics Specialist may file the import permit for follow up on inspection or discuss
findings with an Inspection and Compliance Section Leader.

IC Investigation Manager
Import permits received for unlicensed companies are forwarded to the Investigation

Manager for review. Depending on the information, the Investigation Manager may
conduct an internet search and review the site for compliance with Virus-Serum-Toxin
Act laws and title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), regulations. Subsequent
actions may be taken based on the Investigation Manager’s review.

Retention Period and Disposal of Expired Import Permits
Retention period of import permits follows APHIS Records Management Handbook
guidelines, Section IM 10-1: All other offices: Destroy when 2 years old.

The IC-Lead BCA will delete import penmits from establishment import permit folders
based on the APHIS Records Management Handbook guideline (two years from
expiration date of the import permit).

ICWI0032.05 Page 1 of 1
Author: Becky Rasmussen

Issue Date: 23Mar18

Source Document: ICSOP0032; APHIS Records Management Handbook
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1099 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide States 

with flexibility in determining the size of employers in the small group market. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2015 

Mr. SCOTT (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to provide States with flexibility in determining the size 

of employers in the small group market. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Affordable 

5 Coverage for Employees Act’’ or the ‘‘PACE Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL EMPLOYERS IN THE GROUP MARKET. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1304(b) of the Patient 

8 Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18024(b)) 

9 is amended— 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1099 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘101 employ2 ees’’ and inserting ‘‘51 employees’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘100 employ4 ees’’ and inserting ‘‘50 employees’’; and 

5 (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(3) STATE OPTION TO EXTEND DEFINITION

8 OF SMALL EMPLOYER.—Nothing in this subsection 

9 shall prevent a State from treating an employer with 

10 an average of at least 1 but not more than 100 em11 ployees on business days during the preceding cal12 endar year as a small employer for purposes of this 

13 title.’’. 

14 (b) PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.—Section 

15 2791(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 300gg–91(e)) is amended— 

17 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘101 employ18 ees’’ and inserting ‘‘51 employees’’; and 

19 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘100 employ20 ees’’ and inserting ‘‘50 employees’’. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas YEPEZ-TELLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10079.

D.C. No. CR-04-00135-KJD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 18, 2005.

Patrick J. Walsh, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Arthur L. Allen, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before NELSON, T.G., WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Tomas Yepez-Tello appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

Tomas Yepez-Tello, who was sentenced under advisory guidelines in the wake of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), contends that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment because it was enhanced above the two-year maximum term of imprisonment provided under § 1326(a) on the basis of a prior crime of violence neither alleged in the indictment nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 914 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) *(“Booker*bars the district court from considering only those facts not found by the jury *other than*the fact of prior conviction”). Moreover, the district court’s determination, that Yepez-Tello’s prior California conviction for copulation with a child under the age of 14 is a crime of violence, does not implicate the Sixth Amendment. *United States v. Von Brown,*417 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that the district court made no impermissible finding of fact because whether a prior felony is a crime of violence “is a legal question, not a factual question coming within the purview of *Apprendi, Blakely,*and *Booker”).*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EX-32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of ECO2 Plastics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Rodney S. Rougelot,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By: /s/ Rodney S. Rougelot


Rodney S. Rougelot


Director and Chief Executive Officer





September 14, 2009





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ECO2 Plastics, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST

FLIGHT

FOR SAFE OPERATION OF UAVs

GO SLOW DON’T BE AN IDIOT

Transmitter firmware up to date

UAV firmware up to date

Inspect UAV for obvious defects

Batteries fully charged

Propellers tightened and/or locked

ND Filter needed? Yes/No

SD card in camera, SD card formatted if needed

Monitor brightness set to high & hood installed

Transmitter antenna up

Transmitter turned on

UAV turned on

Compass calibrated

UAV placed in safe launch and recover position

Area clear of people

Warn bystanders of imminent takeoff

Hover close for 20 seconds. Look/listen for defects

Confirm expected stick operation

Monitor battery power

Keep line of sight with UAV if possible

Monitor signal strength
# C_2021044EN.01000701.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien — Austria) — Criminal proceedings against A and Others

(Case C-584/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European investigation order - Directive 2014/41/EU - Article 1(1) - Article 2(c)(i) and (ii) - Concepts of ‘judicial authority’ and ‘issuing authority’ - European investigation order issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Independence from the executive)

(2021/C 44/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Party to the main criminal proceedings

A and Others

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2(c) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘judicial authority’ and ‘issuing authority’, within the meaning of those provisions, include the public prosecutor of a Member State or, more generally, the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State, regardless of any relationship of legal subordination that might exist between that public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office and the executive of that Member State and of the exposure of that public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office to the risk of being directly or indirectly subject to orders or individual instructions from the executive when adopting a European investigation order.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
June 2017

Peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata, Host List

The berries, fruit, nuts and vegetables of the listed plant species are now considered host articles 

for B. zonata. Unless proven otherwise, all cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of the plant species 

listed herein are considered suitable hosts of B. zonata.

Scientific Name Common Name

Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa Baeltree

Afzelia xylocarpa (Kurz) Craib Doussie

Annona reticulata L. Custard apple

Annona squamosa L. Sugar apple

Careya arborea Roxb. Patana oak

Carica papaya L. Papaya

Casimiroa edulis La Llave & Lex. White sapote

Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai Watermelon

Citrus aurantium L. Sour orange

Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f. Lemon

Citrus nobilis x Citrus deliciosa Ten. Kinnow

Citrus paradisi Macfad. Grapefruit

Citrus reticulata Blanco Mandarin orange

Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Orange

Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Ivy gourd

Cucumis sativus L. Cucumber

Cydonia oblonga Mill. Quince

Elaeocarpus hygrophilus Kurz Ma-kok-nam

Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Loquat

Ficus carica L. Fig

Grewia asiatica L. Phalsa

Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl. Bottle gourd

Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. Angled loofah

Luffa spp. Tori

Malpighia emarginata DC. Barbados cherry

Malus pumila Mill. Apple

Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Crab apple

Mangifera indica L. Mango

Manilkara zapota (L.) P. Royen Sapodilla

Mimusops elengi L. Spanish cherry

Momordica charantia L. Bitter melon

Olea europaea L. Olive

Persea americana Mill. Avocado

Phoenix dactylifera L. Date palm
Prunus armeniaca L. Apricot

Prunus avium (L.) L. Sweet cherry

Prunus domestica L. Plum

Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Peach

Prunus sp. N/A

Psidium cattleyanum Sabine Strawberry guava

Psidium guajava L. Guava

Punica granatum L. Pomegranate

Putranjiva roxburghii Wall. Wild olive

Pyrus communis L. Pear

Pyrus ussuriensis Maxim. Manchurian pear

Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato

Solanum melongena L. Eggplant

Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston Rose apple

Syzygium samarangense (Blume) Merr. & L.M. 

Perry Java apple

Terminalia catappa L. Tropical almond

Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Jujube

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Chinese date